The school chaplaincy program (rightfully referred to as a Trojan horse by an earlier poster) is a clear abuse of political leverage and should be attacked any which way at all - especially through the Achilles heel of finance. We have reached a state in this country where the majority of taxpayers have little religious 'faith' yet are forced via the taxation system to support the mostly nonsensucal views of the remaining minority, and forced also to watch helplessly whilst our children - the hope of the future - are indoctrinated with medieval superstition and pseudo-scientific drivel at universal expense. Go to it Ron Williams et al - if the rednecks of Queensland insist on allowing these various dog-collars into their schools, at least let them pay for it themselves.

I questioned Ian Sutherland, the mayor of Moreton Bay Shire, about the implications of the chaplaincy program. He got angry and yelled, "I am a Christian." Sutherland is active in fundraising efforts for the chaplaincy.

Ron Williams spoke about his law suit last Sunday at a meeting of the Queensland Humanist Society. They meet from 1-3 pm last Sunday of the month at Brisbane Central Library. All are welcome. He mentioned:

1. It was Kevin Rudd who originated the school chaplaincy program while he was working under Wayne Goss when Goss was Queensland premier. Howard followed Rudd's lead & made it a national program.

2. When the program was activated Scripture Union showed up in the schools with applications filled out needing only the principal's signature.

3. In general principals signed as they wanted to do what the government wanted.

4. Parents or parents' organisations were rarely if ever consulted as to whether they wanted the program.

david f
You have hit on a typical response from those supporting the program. "I am a Christian" is not a good enough reason to support a program that does not represent all Australians nor is it in keeping with secular principles of separation of State and Church.

It is duplicating counselling services already in place at most schools and is a waste of public funds at a time when there are many more sectors desperately in need of financial assistance.

Two goverment ministers wish to defend the government's commitment to school chaplaincy in the wake of a constitutional challenge to the program.

So Chrys, if not now, when should the ministers come to it's defense?

If it is out of place now for these two men to defend the merits of the program, then is it not equally out of place for the several commentators above to criticise the program?

If these ministers' spirited defence is irrelevant to the writ in question, then should not all the posts above which denounce the chaplaicy program be deemed similarly irrelevant also? 

Yet their denunciation comes in chorus, falsettoed by Gym-fish, "The school chaplaincy program is a clear abuse of political leverage and should be attacked any which way at all - especially through the Achilles heel of finance." 

Have all of these people too missed the point? 

Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 3 March 2011 10:26:48 PM

Way to miss the point entirely, Dan.

Read the first two sentences of the 7th paragraph.

McReal, 
Is this what you're referring to? -

'Ron Williams' High Court challenge relates only to the matter of federal government funding for the NSCP. It says nothing about state funding or about the legality of chaplains working in state schools.'